Menu

trust women

Today is the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. While anti-choice activists are marching on Washington (or in the comfort of their own homes, weirdly enough), those of us who believe in a woman’s right alone to make all choices about her body and her pregnancy are participating in Blog for Choice Day. The theme of this year’s event are the words of assassinated OB/Gyn Dr. George Tiller: Trust Women. Specifically, what does “trust women” mean?

To me it means that trusting women– to make the right choices for themselves and their bodies, trusting that they do not make choices lightly, trusting that they alone know their circumstances, lives, and hearts– trusting women is the only way to go.

And because I am slammed at work, I will link to these interesting facts about abortion in the US from the Guttmacher (there I go again wanting to type Gut-muncher) Institute. One that particularly struck me was that 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have at least one child, confirming my suspicion that often, women choose abortion because they know they cannot support, either emotionally or financially, another child, not because, as some anti-choicers would have us believe, because they hate babies and do not understand what it means to be a mother.

I’ll also share a previously posted piece I wrote about “common ground on abortion,” a hot topic in the age of Obama, and what I really think we should all be coming together to work on, be we for or against a woman’s right to choose (as you’ll see, I think being anti-choice is as sensical as being for Prohibition of alcohol):

President Obama has drawn both praise and criticism for meeting with groups on both sides of the abortion issue and attempting to find “common ground.” One of the things I like about Obama, that I think many people like about him, is that he seems the type to listen to people with whom he both agrees and disagrees, and then try to come to a thoughtful conclusion.

The one problem with all this common ground on abortion stuff?

People who think that making abortion illegal will end or even put a dent in the number of abortions performed annually are wrong.

Yep. A new report from the Guttmacher (I always see this word and think gut-muncher for some reason) Institute found that

While the incidence of abortion is closely related to that of unintended pregnancy, it does not correlate with abortion’s legal status. Indeed, abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is broadly legal and in regions where it is highly restricted.

Making abortion illegal does not change the number of abortions. Period. We should look at people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade about the same way as we look at people who supported Prohibition.

Moreover, what is the main difference between abortions performed in countries where abortion is “broadly legal” and countries where it is “highly restricted”? The safety of the procedure. The report notes:

Illegal, clandestine abortions cause significant harm to women, especially in developing countries…Unsafe abortion causes an estimated 70,000 deaths each year, and an additional five million women are treated annually for complications resulting from unsafe abortion. Approximately three million women who experience serious complications from unsafe procedures go untreated.

So. People who think abortion should be illegal and people who support the right for women to choose abortion actually DO have some common ground, since obviously both sides would prefer that women not be faced with unintended pregnancies that leave them considering abortion. Rather than attempting to prevent abortions by means of laws, which is basically ineffective and causes (additional in the case of those who believe abortion to be murder) deaths, the data shows where the real common ground should be: preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Worldwide, the rate of unintended pregnancy has dropped, just as the rate of contraceptive use among married women has risen. And Eastern Europe, where the greatest decline in abortion was reported, has seen a corresponding rise in contraceptive use. Unfortunately, only 28% of married African women use contraception, and one in four has an unmet need for contraceptives — meaning she is fertile and sexually active but does not currently want to have a child. Most commonly, the problem is lack of availability.

The data is again clear. When contraception access and usage rises, abortion rates decline. Seems that instead of focusing their energies on making abortion illegal when the illegality would have little to no effect on abortion rates, people who really want to reduce the number of abortions should support wider access to contraception.

The Jezebel piece makes another great point which didn’t show up in the Guttmacher release I read: the status of women in these developing countries where women are dying because of unsafe abortions is also important to consider. The Catholic Church, which holds great sway in many of these developing countries, advocates “natural family planning” instead of hormonal or barrier contraception. However, Anna, the writer of the Jezebel piece, notes:

Given that “natural family planning” can require careful timing on the part of both partners, it may not be an effective method in places where women’s status in a relationship is low.

If you live in a society in which you lack the power to say no to sex, be the partner your spouse or just a man on the street, asking you to use “natural family planning” as a sole source of pregnancy prevention is pretty cruel.

Now, up to this point, I have avoided addressing the “morals” of either abortion or extra/premarital sex. Why? Because what I think of morals really doesn’t matter to other people’s choices, and because really, the data is amoral. Want to prevent abortion? There’s one way to do that which actually works, and that’s supporting access to contraception. People who refuse to support access to contraception as a solution, claiming they simply want to outlaw abortion because they think access to contraception will encourage extra/premarital sex reveal their true motives: controlling the sexuality of others, particularly women. Safe, legal, rare, it’s one of Planned Parenthood’s mottoes, and it’s one of mine as well.

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

3 thoughts on “trust women”

I find this two pieces of data you present problematic. I would normally take the Guttmacher data on face value, but, as you point out, getting an illegal abortion is dangerous. I’ve read that in some areas it may involve a 20-30% risk of death. When a single study appears and claims that a 20-30% risk of death has no effect on a person’s decision to engage in an elective action, without further explaining how this is, I have to wonder.

Well, figuring out people’s motives for risky behavior is more difficult than determining if they engage in that behavior. I’d personally guess that it speaks to the desperation of women to obtain an abortion, because they believe continuing the pregnancy is more untenable than the risks involved in ending it.

Welcome!

My name is Sarah Orsborn. I'm a writer living in Denver, CO, with my husband Jon, our four-year-old twin daughters Etta and Claire, who has Spina Bifida, our two dogs Olive and Bessie, and one not-so-Tinycat.

As a child, I nicknamed myself Ernie Bufflo, and from this quirk, my blog takes its name.